Pope
Callistus I

Martyr, died c. 223. His
contemporary,Julius Africanus, gives thedateof hisaccessionas the first (or second?) year ofElagabalus, i.e., 218 or 219.Eusebius and theLiberiancatalogue agree in giving him five
years ofepiscopate. HisActsare spurious, but he is the
earliestpopefound the fourth-century
"Depositio Martirum", and this isgoodevidence that he was really amartyr, although he lived in atimeof
peace underAlexander Severus, whose mother was aChristian. We learn from the "Historiae
Augustae" that a spot on which he had built anoratory was claimed by the
tavern-keepers,popinarii, but the emperor decided
that the worshipof anygodwas
better than a tavern. This is said to have been the origin of Sta.Mariain Trastevere, which was built,
according to theLiberiancatalogue, by Pope Julius,juxta Callistum. In fact theChurchof St. Callistus is close by,
containing a well into whichlegendsays his body was thrown, and this is
probably thechurchhe built, rather than the more famousbasilica. He wasburiedin the cemeteryofCalepodiuson the AurelianWay, and his anniversary is given by
the "Depositio Martirum" (Callisti in viâAureliâ miliario III) and by the subsequent martyrologieson 14 October, on which
day hisfeastis still kept. Hisrelicswere translated in the
ninth century to Sta.Mariain Trastevere.

Our chiefknowledgeof thispopeis from his bitter
enemies,Tertullianand the antipopewho wrote the
"Philosophumena", nodoubtHippolytus. Theircalumnies are probably based on facts. According to the
"Philosophumena" (c. ix) Callistus was theslaveofCarpophorus,
aChristianof the household ofCaesar. His master entrusted large
sums of money to Callistus, with which he started a bank in which brethren andwidowslodged money, all of
which Callistus lost. He took to flight. Carpophorusfollowed him toPortus, where Callistus had embarked
on a ship. Seeing his master approach in a boat, theslavejumped into the sea, but was prevented
from drowning himself, dragged ashore, and consigned to the punishment reserved
forslaves, thepistrinum, orhand-mill. The brethren,believing that he still had money in his name, begged that
he might be released. But he had nothing, so he again courted death by
insulting theJewsat theirsynagogue. The Jewshaled him before theprefectFuscianus.Carpophorusdeclared that Callistus was not to be
looked upon as aChristian, but he was thought to be trying tosave hisslave, and Callistus was sent to the
mines inSardinia. Some time after this,Marcia, the mistress ofCommodus, sent forPope
Victorand asked if there were
anymartyrsinSardinia. He gave her the list, without including
Callistus.Marcia sent a eunuch
who was apriest(or "oldman") to release theprisoners. Callistus fell at his feet, and persuaded him
to take him also.Victorwas annoyed; but being a compassionateman, he keptsilence. However, he sent Callistus toAntiumwith a monthly allowance.

WhenZephyrinusbecamepope, Callistus was recalled and set over thecemeterybelonging to theChurch, not a privatecatacomb; it has ever since borne Callistus's name. He
obtained great influence over theignorant, illiterate, and graspingZephyrinusbybribes. We are not told how it came
about that the runawayslave(now free byRoman lawfrom his master, who had
lost his rightswhen Callistus was
condemned topenalservitude to the State) became archdeaconand thenpope.

DöllingerandDe Rossihave demolished this
contemporaryscandal. To begin with, Hippolytusdoes not say that
Callistus by his own fault lost the money deposited with him. He evidently
jumped from the vessel rather to escape than to commit suicide. ThatCarpophorus,
aChristian, should commit aChristianslaveto the horrible punishment of thepistrinumdoes not speak well for
themaster's character.

Theintercessionof theChristiansfor Callistus is in his
favour. It is absurd to suppose that he courted death by attacking asynagogue; it is clear that he asked theJewishmoney-lendersto repay what they owed him, and at
some risk to himself. The declaration ofCarpophorusthat Callistus was noChristianwas scandalousanduntrue.Hippolytushimself shows that it was
as aChristianthat Callistus was sent
to the mines, and therefore as aconfessor,
and that it was as a Christianthat he was released. IfPope Victorgranted Callistus a monthlypension, he need not suppose that he
regretted his release. It is unlikely thatZephyrinus wasignorantand base. Callistus could hardly have raised himself so
high without considerable talents, and the vindictivespiritexhibited byHippolytusand his defectivetheologyexplain whyZephyrinusplaced his confidence
rather in Callistus than in the learneddiscipleofIrenaeus.

Theorthodoxyof Callistus is
challenged by bothHippolytusandTertullianon the ground that in a
famous edict he grantedCommunionafter duepenanceto those who had committedadulteryand fornication. It is
clear that Callistus based his decreeon the power of binding
and loosing granted toPeter, to
hissuccessors, and to all in
communion with them: "As to thy decision", cries theMontanistTertullian, "I ask, whence dost thou usurp thisrightof theChurch? If it is because theLord said toPeter: Upon this rock I will build MyChurch, I will give thee thekeysof
the kingdom of heaven', or whatsoever though
bindest orlooseston earth shall be bound or loosed inheaven', that thou presumest that this power of binding
and loosing has been handed down to thee also, that is to everyChurchin communion withPeter's(ad omnem ecclesiam Petripropinquam, i.e.Petri ecclesiaepropinquam), who art thou that
destroyest and alterest the manifestintentionof theLord, who conferred this onPeterpersonally and alone?" (On Pudicity21)
The edict was an order to the wholeChurch(ib., i): "I hear that an edict
has been published, and a peremptory one; thebishopofbishops, which means thePontifex Maximus, proclaims: I remit
the crimes ofadulteryand fornication to those
who have donepenance."
DoubtlessHippolytusandTertullianwere upholding a supposedcustomof earlier times, and thepopeindecreeinga relaxation was regarded as enacting
a newlaw. On this point it is unnecessary
tojustifyCallistus. Other complaints ofHippolytusare that Callistus did
not putconvertsfromheresy to publicpenanceforsinscommitted outside theChurch(this mildness was
customary inSt. Augustine'stime); that he had received into his
"school" (i.e. TheCatholicChurch) those whomHippolytushadexcommunicatedfrom "The
Church" (i.e., his ownsect); that he declared that a mortalsinwas not
("always", we may supply) a sufficient reason fordeposingabishop.Tertullian(De Exhort.Castitatis,
vii) speaks with reprobation ofbishopswho had beenmarriedmore than once, andHippolytuscharges Callistus with
being the first to allow this, againstSt. Paul'srule. But in theEastmarriagesbeforebaptismwere not counted, and in
any case thelawis one from which thepopecan dispense ifnecessityarise. Again Callistus allowed the
lowerclergytomarry, and permitted nobleladiestomarry
lowpersonsandslaves, which by theRoman lawwas forbidden; he had
thus given occasion forinfanticide. Here again Callistus was rightly
insisting on the distinction between theecclesiastical
lawofmarriageand thecivil law, which later ages have always taught.Hippolytusalso declared that
rebaptizing (ofheretics) was performed first in Callistus's day, but he
does not state that Callistus was answerable for this. On the whole, then, it
is clear that theCatholicchurchsides with Callistus against theschismaticHippolytusand thehereticTertullian. Not a word is said against thecharacterof Callistus since his promotion, nor
against the validity of hiselection.

NowHippolytus'sown Christologyis most imperfect, and he
tells us that Callistus accused him of Ditheism. It is not to be wondered at,
then, if he calls Callistus the inventor of a kind of modifiedSabellianism. In reality it iscertainthatZephyrinusand Callistus condemned
variousMonarchiansandSabelliushimself, as well as the opposite errorofHippolytus. This is enough to suggest that Callistus held
theCatholicFaith. And in fact it cannot be denied that theChurchofRomemust have held a Trinitariandoctrinenot far from that taught
by Callistus's elder contemporary Tertullianand by his much younger
contemporaryNovatian--adoctrinewhich was not so
explicitly taught in the greater part of theEastfor a long period afterwards. The
accusations ofHippolytusspeak for the suretraditionof theRoman Churchand for itsperfectorthodoxyand moderation. If weknewmore of St. Callistus
from Catholicsources, he would
probably appear as one of the greatest of thepopes.

Sources

The
Acts of St. Callistus were uncritically defended in theActa SS., 14 Oct.; and by
MORETTI,De S. Callisto P. et M.(Rome, 1752). ThePhilosophumenawere first published in
1851. On the story of Callistus BUNSEN,Hippolytus and his Age(London, 1852), and CH.
WORDSWORTH,St. Hippolytus and the
Church of Rome(London, 1853) are
worthless. DOLLINGER'S great workHippolytus und
Kallistus(Ratisbon,
1853), tr. PLUMMER (Edinburgh, 1876) is still the chief authority. See also DE
ROSSI,Bulletino
di Arch. Crist.,
IV (1886); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW,Roma Sotterranea(London, 1879), I,
497-505. De Rossi observes that theLiber Pontificaliscalls Callistus the son
of Domitius, and he foundCallistus Domitiorumstamped on some titles of
the beginning of the second century. Further there is extant an inscription of
a Carpophorus, a freedman of M. Aurelius. The edict of Callistus on penance has
been restored with too much assurance by ROLFFS,Das Indulgenz-Edikt des römischen
Bischofs Kallist(Leipzig,
1893), Harnack thinks that Callistus also issued a decree about fasting, and
that other writings of his may have been known to Pseudo-Isidore, who
attributed two letters to him (which will be found in the Councils, in
HINSCHIUS, etc.); one of these seems to connect itself with the decision
attributed to Callistus by Hippolytus;see
HARNACK,Chronol., II, 207-8. On the
Catacomb of St. Callistussee DE
ROSSI,Roma Sotterranea(Rome, 1864-77);
NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW,Roma Sotterranea(London, 1879).